Reading 1: Genesis 31

In stealing the household gods Rachel demonstrates a rather unsavoury aspect of her character. We tend to think of Rachel, maybe because she was Jacob's favourite wife, as the more spiritual. However look for aspects of Leah's behaviour in the next few days which show her spirituality.

This is a strange but remarkable phrase, denoting the personal God who was the object of Isaac’s worship. The word for "fear" (pachad) suggests reverential awe, a fear of offending. That was the attitude of Isaac towards God. He is the God whom Isaac feared and revered at the same time. Note that he calls him not Isaac’s God, but "his fear", because Isaac was yet alive, and in the state of probation, he served God with fear and trembling.(see -Gen 27:33 )

Let this be the driving force each and every day, that with reverential fear, we may see ourselves as living in the sight of God.

31:22 It is all too easy to make hasty judgments or draw hasty conclusions. When we feel things are not going as we would like in our lives we might be tempted to feel that God has forsaken us. This is the sort of thing that David is saying.

31:2 Laban’s scheming against Jacob seems to be becoming less effective. The wonderful blessing of having Jacob care for his flock seems now to have turned to be a blessing upon Jacob. So Laban sees Jacob as a liability now. Hence his attitude changes.

Gen 31:3,24 The time had come for Jacob to return to his father's house. V.3 After Laban had realized what had happened, he chased after Jacob, and caught up to him. We see that Laban did him no harm, because of God's intervention. V.24 We see here that God's plan and purpose will be accomplished.

Verse 3 is a reminder to Jacob of God's promise to him in Gen 28:15"I will be with you...". It shows that God had been with Jacob all along. Looking at the wording of the promise, we can see that God had intended to bring him back home again, and the events surrounding Jacob's exit were brought about by Him.

31:4 Whilst we may understand Jacob’s concerns about how he might be treated the way in which he called his wives to him ‘in the field’ in yet another example of Jacob’s guile. He had presumed how Laban would behave and not trusting God to take care of him works out his own solution. How would we have reacted?

31:4-6 Laban was not an easy person to work for, as far as Jacob was concerned. However he worked for him “with all my power”. It is easy to work hard for a good employer but not so easy when the employer is bad. Jacob showed the correct spirit in the way he worked for Laban. Do we show the same spirit in our workplace no matter what our employer is like.

Genesis 31 - The affairs of these families are related very minutely, while (what are called) the great events of states and kingdoms at that period, are not mentioned. The Bible teaches people the common duties of life, how to serve God, how to enjoy the blessings he bestows, and to do good in the various stations and duties of life. Selfish men consider themselves robbed of all that goes past them, and covetousness will even swallow up natural affection. Men's overvaluing worldly wealth is that error which is the root of covetousness, envy, and all evil. The men of the world stand in each other's way, and every one seems to be taking away from the rest; hence discontent, envy, and discord. But there are possessions that will suffice for all; happy they who seek them in the first place.

Genesis 31:7 - The sheep in Mesopotamia, brought forth their young twice a year; so that every weaning time, which was ten times in five years, Laban made an alteration in Jacob's wages; one time he would let Jacob have only the speckled, and not the ringstraked; another time the ringstraked, and not the speckled; and so changed every time, according as Laban observed the prevailing colour was, as may be concluded from the next verse.

Genesis 31:15 - "Are we not accounted of him strangers?".... Laban their father had not treated his daughters as children, nor even as freeborn persons; but as if they were foreigners that he had taken in war, or bought of others; or at least, that they were born bondmaids in his house, and so had a right to sell them as he had. "....for he hath sold us" - Laban had sold his daughters to Jacob for fourteen years service, as if they had been his slaves, instead of giving dowries with them as his children. "....and hath quite devoured also our money" - that which Laban had got by the servitude of Jacob, instead of giving it back to them as their portion; he spent it on himself and his sons, and there was nothing left for them. Truly Uncle Laban was a serpent, through and through, a real "cheat" [as Jacob's name means].

Genesis 31:23 - "and pursued after him seven days' journey" - which must be reckoned, not from Jacob's departure from Haran, but from Laban's; for Laban being three days' journey from thence, whither he had to return, after he received the news of Jacob being gone; Jacob must have travelled six days before Laban set out with his brethren from Haran; so that this was, the thirteenth day of Jacob's travel; for Laban not having animals to drive as Jacob did, could travel as fast again as he, and do that in seven days which took up Jacob thirteen. "and they overtook him in the mount Gilead" - This is thought to be three hundred and eighty miles from Haran. Laban had been thwarted by Jacob, for his intention was never to let Jacob actually take possession of that which he had worked so hard for. Though part of the "Ecclesia" at Haran, Uncle Laban certainly showed himself to be a man too much in love with this present world.

31:7 Despite his subterfuge and guile Jacob still recognised that his God took care of him. We should be encouraged by this realisation. God does not only care for those of His children who never do anything wrong. He cares for all His children and actually uses their weaknesses to strengthen their characters.

:12 The angel, in saying 'lift up now thine eyes and see' he is quoting Genesis 13:14 where an angel asked Abraham to do the same. So the way that Jacob dealt with the sheep was at the direction of God and in some way related to the promises that had been made to Abraham.

Gen 31:21-22 - V22 - an awareness of escape on the third day not unlike the awareness of Christ's escape on the third day; V23 - meeting up on the 7th day just as Christ is pursued and will be found on the 7th millenial day.

31:22 That it took three days before Laban heard that Jacob had left with Rachel and Leah must indicate the degree to which Jacob had become alienated from Laban – notice he did not even see for himself that they had left. He had to be ‘told’.

31:25-28 Laban’s complaint sounds eminently reasonable. Jacob could say little to pacify Laban. All he could do was to complain about Laban’s behaviour. The saving feature – if one can call it that – was that Laban did not find his household Gods! One cannot help but wonder what Laban would have done if he had found his gods.

31:34 Laban clearly did not understand the Divine principle of marriage – Gen 22:23-24 – The girls were no longer his in the sense that he spoke of. Do we harbour the thinking of Laban with respect to our children, trying to influence and control them even when they have married?

In verse 43 we really see what a greedy, avaricious and totally self-centred man Laban was: having just been on the receiving end of Jacob's fully justified tirade in verses 36-42, instead of Laban seeing just how awfully he had treated his own nephew and in response hanging his head in shame, Laban's love of money and haughty pride caused him to respond by claiming that all Jacob owned (and had more than earned!) was still his.

Sadly, in these last days of man's dominion of this world, we regularly witness such awful avaricious behaviour amongst the well-off and powerful in society who, egged on by the right-wing media with agendas of their own, begrudge giving anything to the poor and/or disabled.

In Luke 22:22-30 our Lord shows us the way he and his Father would like us to behave instead, and the infinitely better reward that awaits those who do behave in that way.

31:41 Because we read the details of the life of Jacob in a few days we may easily forget the long time periods involved. The events in the house of Laban cover 20 years. How would we deal with 20 years of frustration?

V.41 Jacob did not only serve the LORD God, but we see in this verse the decree that he served Laban. As we look at Jacob's service to his father in law; We see how he was taken advantage of for some twenty years. We ask, would we be prepared to serve within the ecclesia under similar circumstances?

Gen 31:53 The God of Abraham and the God of Nahor? - The covenant to ensure peace between Laban and Jacob was confirmed by the construction of a heap of stones by Jacob and his sons (Gen 31:44-46). Jacob named the heap stones “Galeed” (margin, the heap of witness) and “Mizpah” (margin, a beacon or watchtower). On this heap of stones a pillar was constructed (Gen 31:51). It was Laban (v.51) who said, “The God of Abraham, and the God of Nahor, the God of their father judge betwixt us.”

On first reading, it might appear that Laban is stating that the God of Abraham is the same God as the God of Nahor. Joshua told the Israel that their fathers Terah and Nachor served other God’s (Josh 24:2).

Jacob acknowledged that the God of Abraham and the fear of Isaac was the guiding hand in Jacob’s life (Gen 31:42). Laban’s all embracing statement linking Jacob’s God and Nahor’s Gods is perhaps the reason why Jacob limited his response to only swaring by the fear (or dread) of Jacob (v.53). Jacob thus avoided linking Yahweh with the God of Nachor as witnesses to their covenant.

v.48 - It seems that stones, or heaps of stones, were sometimes erected as a witness. Stone is long lasting. It is there for a long time to keep a 'watch' (Jegarsahadutha (Aramaic) and Galeed (Hebrew) [v.47] both mean 'watch') over the makers of the vows together. In Josh.24:27, the rock seems to have been personalised, as if it had ears. So is this rock a representation of God? Something long-lasting - a memorial stone to remind them of the vows which they swore there?

31:47-48 The way in which Laban and Jacob both name the heap of stones in different languages is interesting to consider. We are only three generation from Abram leaving the place where Laban lived. But by now they are speaking different –languages, or at least different dialects of the same language.

Gen 31:49, Gen 31:55 it seems the relationship with Laban and Jacob was not as amicable as we would think. In v49 Laban is basically saying I will be keeping an eye on you, Jacob was not trusted by Laban, and notice in v55 that Laban kisses everyone except Jacob.

Perhaps we try and please everyone at times but can take encouragemant that we we always come across those that will look at us with mistrust, jealousy and envy for the blessing we recieve from God.

31:52 We may wonder why Jacob never sent to find wives for his sons in the same way that Abraham and Isaac did for their sons. This agreement actually prevented the sort of arrangements that Abraham and Isaac made for their sons happening for Jacobs sons.

Laban seems a bit confused. After Jacob had fled from Laban's house to go back to the land of Canaan, Laban pursued Jacob for two reasons. One, he wanted to say goodbye to his daughters and grandchildren, and secondly, someone had stolen his household gods and he wanted them back. The point on which he seems confused is that of who his god really was.

He had seen that the God of Jacob was a powerful and active God, in fact, on his way to meet Jacob we learn that God came to him and spoke to him. There could have been no doubt in his mind that the LORD was God. Remember that Laban's second biggest concern was that his own gods were missing from his house. Laban makes a big deal out of his missing gods, but later, at his departure he makes his covenant with Jacob by "the God of Abraham and the God of Nahor, the God of their father." (Gen 31:53)

So Laban, knowing that the LORD was God and acknowledging that fact in his discussions and covenant with Jacob, was also significantly attached to the idols in his own home.

But we are not confused - or are we? We, like Laban, may have seen God at work in our lives or in the lives of others, we may worship him at appointed times, but do we have other gods or attachments at home that we would desperately miss if we were to do without? If we examine ourselves closely, we may find that we do. Let us solve the confusion by making the LORD our one and only God at all times.

Reading 2: Psalm 35

This Psalm, like so many, is about David, but also about Christ. The Lord's suffering was just as real as was David's, but worse. Jesus Christ did nothing wrong. He never killed a man, or fought in battle. He had no riches to provoke men's jealousy. He was altogether lovely. Yet they hated Him, and plotted His death.

In this prophetic psalm of David, we get a glimpse into the intensity the prayers of Jesus during the long nights spent talking to his Father. He put all his trust in God to look after him, despite what he was going through.

Vs.1-8 David called on the Lord for both protection against and destruction of his enemy. God's enemies were David's enemies and so calling for their destruction was legitimate. The same is true for us. However, we are told to love our enemies (Matt 5:44) and to follow peace with all men (Heb 12:14). But we are not friends with the world (James 4:4).
Thus, we are not pacifists, but followers of our commander-in-chief who has told us to forbear for the moment.
Like David, who had more than one opportunity to defeat his enemy Saul, we restrain ourselves, having faith that the Lord will liberate us (Rom 12:19).

35:1 In asking God to “plead my cause” David, even though the powerful king of Israel does not rely on that status but rather leaves tings in God’s hands. If king David did that we have a wonderful example to copy when we feel we are wronged.

Psalm 35 - A Psalm of David. This psalm seems to have been written by David, when he was persecuted by Saul; and when many false charges were brought against him by his courtiers; and when he was the scorn and derision of the people; the subject of it is pretty much of the same kind with Psalm 7, and might be written about the same time that was, or at least describing the same occasion. There is a passage in it, Psalm 35:19, which our Lord seems to refer to and apply to Himself, John 15:25.

Psalm 35:2 - "Take hold of shield and buckler, and stand up for mine help." - The shield is a small hand held device, whilst the buckler describes a large body shield. Both these were defensive weapons. "Draw out also the spear"- In contrast, the spear is an offensive weapon. The weapons of our warfare are likewise, defensive and offensive, as we fight the carnal mind in our own lives - but all weapons are useless, except the Lord stand for us.

Psa 35:20 - "For they speak not peace" - They seek a quarrel. They are unwilling to be on good terms with others, or to live in peace with them. The idea is that they were "disposed" or "inclined" to quarrel. Thus we speak now of persons who are "quarrelsome." "They devise deceitful matters" - literally, "they think of words of deceit." That is, they set their hearts on misrepresentation, and they study such misrepresentations as occasions for strife with others. They falsely represent my character; they attribute conduct to me of which I am not guilty; they pervert my words; they state that to be true which never occurred, and thus they attempt to justify their own conduct. Almost all the quarrels in the world, whether pertaining to nations, to neighbourhoods, to families, or to individuals, are based on some "misrepresentation" of facts, designed or undesigned, and could have been avoided if men had been willing to look at facts as they are, or perfectly understood each other."Against them that are quiet in the land" - That are disposed to be quiet, or that are inclined to live in peace with those around them. The word rendered "quiet" means literally those who are "timid;" then, those who shrink back, and gather together from fear; then, those in general who are disposed to be peaceful and quiet, or who are indisposed to contention and strife. David implicitly asserts himself to be one of that class; a man who preferred peace to war, and who had no disposition to keep up a strife with his neighbours.

V.2A shield (Heb. magen) was a small shield that could be wielded. A buckler (Heb. tsinah) was a large shield that protected the whole body. And so, Yahweh has property of warding off danger, while fully protected the whole person. By the way, the symbol for the modern Sate of Israel, which is on the Israeli flag, is the Magen David, the Shield of David.

Psa 35:3 - KJV "Draw out also the spear, and stop the way against them that persecute me..." - this sounds like Saul against David but could it also be the spear stuck into Christ proving he was dead and had achieved victory (1Sam 26:12;John 19:31-37)?

Psa 35:11 - KJV "False witnesses..." - could this have application to those who falsely accused Christ (Matt 26:59-60)?

Psa 35:12 - KJV "They rewarded me evil for good..." - This could apply to Saul and David (1Sam 24:8,17,19) and those who betrayed Christ.

v.7 - There is much in the Psalms that present David, and, by implication, Jesus as unworthy of their punishment. See also 7:3-5, 25:3, 64:4. Bildad has stated the converse in Job 18:8. One wonders whether David is purposely picking up this language and turning it round to be positive.

35:11 This Psalm could reflect David’s feelings when he was being pursued by Saul – though the experience of persecution can be seen at other times in his life. The ‘false witnesses’ is like the situation in 1Sam 24:9.

Psa 35:11-14 we perhaps see in these verses the emotional suffering our master went through, imagine your brethren (Israel) the ones you had come to redeem turning on you, even his disciples struggled to believe him. After the feeding of the 5000 in John 6 over 5000 people walked away, 12 remined but only Peter stood up for him.

Judas of course betreyed him Psa 35:14, Matt 12:46 though Jesus knew he was to be betrayed it still grieved him that a friend Judas should do it and still Jesus tried to warn him.

Psa 35:15 I believe the word adversary should be "halting" a reference to Jacob? But when Jesus halted they mocked him they abused a man who was physically weak from punishment the smiters (abjects) gathered around him hitting him so he didnt know who did it, Luke 22:63 an image perhaps of a child being punched and kicked on a playground with noone helping him and those not hitting him laughing.

Let us remember what our father has done in allowing his only son suffer for us, and what our Lord Jesus Christ has done for his friends!

35:28 Despite his problems. Despite the opposition David was experiencing - :18 – David recognised that God’s righteousness should be proclaimed. We do well to reflect on that when we feel we are being ill-treated.

35:24 David had asked to be judged according to his own righteousness – Psa 7:8 – in a specific set of circumstances which I comment on in the notes on Psa 7. However ultimately it is God’s righteousness that we can rely on. Paul develops this for us in Rom 3:25-26 where we can see that God’s righteousness is seen in the forgiveness of sin.

Reading 3: Matthew 20

V.34 The two blind men's persistence appears from the fact that instead of being quiet, they cry all the louder. Finally, the blessing which Jesus bestows on them becomes evident in that not only are they healed, but are treated with marvelous compassion and tenderness.

v9 The denarius was a small silver coin. In a sense, it survived a long time. English coinage prior to 1971 was reckoned in pounds, shillings and pence, commonly abbreviated to L-S-D. The "D" stood for the denarius.

:1-16 The parable of the labourers in the vineyard is directed at the disciples because of Peter's question [19:27] about what they would have in the kingdom. The lesson did not sink home immediately because :20 The mother of Zebedee's children - Mark 10:35 says it was the sons - asked a favour of Jesus which showed that the parable had not been understood.

The climax of the parable of the workers in the vineyard is the moment when each worker received their wages. It is on the seemingly unfair distribution of the landowner's wealth that we usually focus our attention, but I would like to concentrate on the event that led up to the payment of the workers.

We read, "For the kingdom of heaven is like a landowner who went out early in the morning to hire men to work in his vineyard." (Matt 20:1) Finding others later on, he said, "You also go and work in my vineyard." (v.4) And right at the end of the day he said the same thing to others, "You also go and work in my vineyard." (v.7) The key to this whole parable is work. Without work there can be no reward.

As we interpret the parable we find that the landowner represents God, and we are the workers. We are the ones who are called to work in God's vineyard. We are not called to be freeloaders, eating the landowners grapes, but are called to the harvest - to work in his vineyard.

So let us fulfil our duty and do the work we have been called to do. Let's not just be seat-warmers at church, sitting there waiting to be fed, but active, doing all we can to preach the word, to encourage the other workers and to reap the harvest for the Lord Almighty.

V.21 From Mark 10:35-41 it is clear that the request which the mother of James and John makes, is also the request of her sons. In fact, Mark does not even mention the mother. Matthew tells us the request is from the mother, while Mark says it was from the sons. mother and sons were in perfect agreement. together they came to Jesus with the request.

There is a very unfortunate chapter division from ch19 to ch20. The context of this chapter is wholly an expanded answer of Jesus. Notice the joining statement: "But many who are first will be last, and the last first. For the kingdom of heaven is like..."

So in this chapter first and last are mentioned 5 times, most noticeably in v8 and the summation in v16. The men in v2 and v6 are the first and last whose reward appeared to be reversed in magnitude. But this was only the way it appeared to those who expected more than they had been promised (see v10). Jesus is merely pointing out that he, as the master, doesn't want there to be a link between our level of attainment and the level of reward (v14-15). This is much harder to accept for those who have attained much; the example being Saul of Tarsus (Phil 3:4-9). But it is the way it is because life is a gift of God, offered by Him because of the magnitude of HIS goodness; not ours (1John 4:9-11).

20:4,7 In offering “whatsoever is right” we see, in the parable, men who trusted their master to be fair. In fact in the parable the master was more than fair. Do we view God as “fair”? Are we willing to trust that he will give that which is right?

Matthew 20:15 - "Is thine eye evil, because I am good?" - What is an evil eye? The eye is the entrance to the brain. To have ones eyes opened, is to have the brain excited with new information that sheds light upon a problem, Ecclesiastes 11:7. To give someone an "evil eye," is to lower the eyelids and screw up the face in a squint, so as to give someone a "dark look" as we say today. Another saying we have today is "to shoot daggers" at somebody. Jesus is remonstrating with the Pharisees here, because they were always "shooting daggers" at Him, giving Him the evil eye. Why? Because His way of life and words, which were of God or good, showed them up so badly. If they only wanted it, Jesus could heal them of their evil eye, as we see in v30-34, where He healed two [or is it three?] blind men near the town of Jericho.

Matthew 20:33 - "They say unto him, Lord, that our eyes may be opened"- That is, that their sight might be restored to them; for being deprived of that, it was all one as if their eyes were so closed, that they could not open them; and so the recovery of their sight is expressed by an opening of them. The opening of the eyes of the blind was prophesied of, as what should be done in the days of the Messiah, and by Him, as an evidence of His being that person, Isaiah 35:5 which prophecy these blind men might be acquainted with, and be an encouragement to their faith to expect a cure from Him. They do not ask for alms, but for the recovery of their sight; which being granted, they would be able to get their bread in another way; for they were not like some idle persons that choose rather to be under such a calamity [see v6], or any other, that they might not be obliged to work with their hands for a livelihood. Their request shows, that they made no doubt of it, but firmly believed that Christ was able to do this for them, though the thing was impossible to be done by man. We therefore, by miracles such as these, must conclude that He was not a mere man, but also the Son of the living God.

v.7. Are we going out in these last days to find the few that stand idle and have not been hired. It is certainly the 11th hour (v.9). If we can hire them now, they can still receive the kingdom with us. We have a responsibility Rom.10:14-17. We were all there once Eph.2:12. Remember the situation Jesus describes at the end in another parable Matt.22:9

20:8‘last unto the first’ catches precisely Jesus’ words in Matt 19:30and is a phrase found later in this chapter – Matt 20:16 so we see the way in which the disciples concern of the last chapter is dealt with extensively in this chapter.

20:10 The important principle for us to understand here is that God can decide what he will give to each of His servants. Whilst what He gives may well vary in this life His servants are in no position to question their lot.

20:11 “murmured” might seem to just speak of complaining. However Jesus, in this parable, is putting into the mouths of those hired early the words of those who perished in the wilderness –Exo 15:24, 16:2 etc. It was that murmuring which showed the people’s attitude to God and eventually contributed to their death in the wilderness.

I wonder if there is a link between the passage in Matt 20:17-19 where Jesus forthrightly told His disciples that he was going to be crucified (notice, not just to be killed), and the next few verses where James and John’s mother asked for a position of honour for her two sons in the kingdom (Matt 20:20-28). Perhaps Mrs Zebedee didn't know what Jesus had just said, or on the other hand, she was a real woman of faith and believed that although He would die, He would rise again, and later come in His kingdom. Mark records the two events together (Mark 10:32-45), but Luke only tells us of Jesus’ prediction of His own death (Luke 18:31-34).

20:17-18 Going up to Jerusalem was the whole focus of Jesus’ journeying. He had an end in sight. He was going to lay down his life in obedience to God. So this is not merely a comment about Jesus’ travelling around the land. It is making a point about his focus.

In v. 22, Jesus is obviously speaking in a figurative way concerning drinking of the cup (i.e. the cup of suffering and death). The disciples answer his question, "Can you drink the cup I am going to drink?" in this way: "Yes, we can." What might they have been thinking at this time for them to answer this question in such a positive way?

In Matt 20:17-19, Jesus tells his disciples explicitly of what will soon happen to him at Jerusalem and in the parallel account in Luke 18:34, Luke records the fact that they did not understand and that its meaning was hid to them. So when James' and John's mother, on their behalf, asks Jesus for the quality spots - at his right and left hand - in the kingdom, it really has to mean that they thought that he would overthrow the power of Rome and immediately set up God's kingdom on earth. The whole concept of this vibrant and powerful and godly man enduring the horrors of crucifixion was the farthest thing from their thinking. Therefore it looks like they likely interpreted Jesus' straightforward message to being some kind of parable that they just didn't quite get. Or possibly that he was being unduly pessimistic.

So given these facts, I would think that they were likely thinking that "the cup" he was referring to was part of the great reward of sitting with him in positions of power and honor when he established the kingdom - soon! - not ~2,000 years into the future after a death, resurrection, ascension to heaven and return to earth. As he would say later at the last supper -

"I confer on you a kingdom, just as my Father conferred on me, so that you may eat anddrink at my table in my kingdom, and sit on thrones, judging the twelve tribes of Israel." (Lk. 22:29,30)

So when Jesus endorsed their positive response - "You will indeed drink from my cup" - they heard it one way while Jesus really meant it in another. This is not the only time, by any means, that they were not on the same page with Jesus in what he was saying. At times when he was speaking symbolically as in the need for them to beware "the leaven" of the Pharisees and Sadducees (Matt 16:5-12), they thought he was being literal. And now they were misinterpreting what he meant by "drinking the cup".

This, though, is not to say we would have done any better in that situation. A lot would be cleared up in their thinking when Jesus' promise of the Comforter - the Holy Spirit - would come and "will teach you all things and will remind you of everything I said to you" (Jn. 14:26).

20:17-19 We can conclude that there were many travelling with Jesus. However it was only the twelve who were told about Jesus’ impending death. Why? Maybe if the multitude knew they would attempt to try and make Jesus king and defend him.

20:17 Jesus had many disciples following him during his ministry. There were a number who were with him all the time Acts 1:21-22 - so we see that Jesus told just the 12 about his impending trial and death in Jerusalem. It was not something that he shared with all those that followed him.

Matt 20:18-19 Here we have the third and final time that Christ would tell the disciples of His crucifixion and resurrection. The other two times that Matthew records this are (Matt 16:21) and (Matt 17:22-23). Each time Christ tells them, He adds more details, so this third discourse is more detailed than the previous two. We learn that not only is the Sanhedrin going to cause the Lord to suffer but, that they would hand Him over to the Gentiles to be mocked and scourged. Each time they were told that on the third day He would be raised from the dead.

20:24 The rest of the disciples were indignant when Peter and John had made their request. This contrasts with the ‘ruler’ in Chapter 19. On hearing what was required of him he ‘went away sorrowful’ – Matt 19:22

V.23 The phrase prepared of my Father seems to suggest that Jesus has no say in the decision making. But, that would be inconsistent with His role of judge, king, and high priest, all of which are top administrative positions. When Jesus was resurrected, Yahweh placed all authority under him (Psa 110:1-7; 1Cor 15:27). But, at the time the request was made (v.21) this was not the case. Anyway, it would have been inappropriate to show favouritism, or to declare rewards before the allotted time (i.e. when Jesus returns to earth Rev 22:12). Yahweh who knows all things from the beginning to the end would have already prepared conditions and places (Isa 46:9,10).